Bobcat Construction Equipment (and FAMECE)

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by kato13

In the image below I was thinking the circle might be some sort of retractable wheel. If so that would really slow the transfer process unless the transposed units are right next to each other.

It is one thing if you can swap out power units for repair or maintenance and this takes a two hours. It is entirely different if it takes two hours to swap work sections to continue working on an assigned task.

The four wheel power module looks like the smarter approach and one that can be exchanged quickly on the job site.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

It is one thing if you can swap out power units for repair or maintenance and this takes a two hours. It is entirely different if it takes two hours to swap work sections to continue working on an assigned task.

The four wheel power module looks like the smarter approach and one that can be exchanged quickly on the job site.

I fully agree. I realized I had said i liked the two wheel version when I meant to type the two axle version (The Lockheed design).

[Gelrir]

Congrats, Kato, you win today's internet for finding a FAMECE picture!

The original requirement by the Army was to swap modules in 30 minutes; I dunno how well Clark or Lockheed did in that regard.

The single-axle power module probably has an advantage in weight -- those big tires and wheels are very heavy. Meeting the 15,000 pound weight limit for each module was probably not easy. An eensie-wheensie "trailer wheel" for moving the power module around when swapping, or into aircraft, etc. makes sense for that.

One can presume, of course, that Lockheed Corp. was part of the Council of Tomorrow -- along with all of its bankruptcy and bribery problems. Given that they build the C-130, that might fit in with the "electric C-130" concept for Prime Base.

--
Michael B.

[Gelrir]

I found a sketch of the Clark FAMECE equipment in a discussion of the compactor; it clearly shows a small wheel, which seems to be lowered from the side of the power module. So, I guess it's not a tricycle!

--
Michael B.

[Gelrir]

Oh, and a bit more from an article in the News-Palladium for March of 1974:

"In order to accommodate the various attachments, the cockpit of Clark's power module prototype rotates 180 degrees, permitting it to be used as a push or pull vehicle. Constructed as a single axle power module, it uses hydraulically operated auxiliary wheels to operate independently when not attached to the grader or scraper module. ' Designed to be quickly assembled, the grader and scraper modules are structurally married or detached from the power module by four bolts."

--
Michael B.

[Gelrir]

Some nice drawings of the Clark equipment, and a few more numbers, in this PDF of a 1980 document:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...mdXb9EQJQ3tHEg

--
Michael B.

[Gelrir]

Oh, here are some more good pictures of the Clark equipment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105529691/...igest-Jul-1978

The wee little wheels are shown, along with the power-take-off connection.

Clark makes a lot of vehicles with electric drives, for what that's worth -- mostly forklifts and other material-handling vehicles.

--
Michael B

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Gelrir

One can presume, of course, that Lockheed Corp. was part of the Council of Tomorrow -- along with all of its bankruptcy and bribery problems. Given that they build the C-130, that might fit in with the "electric C-130" concept for Prime Base.

In general i like to Project companies to be private if possible. I certainly see them partnering with Lockheed on projects or maybe licensing designs. Lockheed, given its size, would have attracted all sorts of attention (congress, DOD, SEC, IRS GAO). Clark seems like it could have been privately acquired and capable of avoiding some of that scrutiny.

[kato13]

Looked at the PDFs. Nice finds Gelrir.

[Gelrir]

I've got a copy of "Jane's Combat Support Equipment 1978-79", and on page 231-232 they've got a writeup of the FAMECE program. Nothing we haven't already seen in this thread, really, except some minor points:

"Assembled, combinations will be able to travel over rough terrain up to 48 kh/h"

"The fiscal year 1979 request was for 376 units of FAMECE at a cost of $24 million."

Along with a very "Popular Mechanics"-y illustration of half-a-dozen FAMECE units doing things. Probably depicts an early version of the Clark system: the power units have only two big wheels, but don't have the roll-over protection cabs.

--
Michael B.

P.S. -- if anyone needs stats on 'combat support' stuff for the classic MP setting, let me know and I can peek in this book. It's got the XR311, the V150 armored recovery vehicle, and thousands of other items detailed.

[Gelrir]

A couple of paragraphs from The Engineer, "... an authorized quarterly publication of the U.S. Army Engineer School", early 1976:

An improved Universal Engineer Tractor (UET) developed by the Product Manager, FAMECE/UET at the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command (MERADCOM), Fort Belvoir, VA is undergoing extensive government acceptance testing at the Aberdeen (MD) Proving Grounds.

The latest version of the UET incorporates all the desirable characteristics of earlier models, such as versatility, mobility and air transportability, plus greater durability and reliability.

The multi-purpose, tracked UET can doze, scrape, rough grade, tow, dump and haul, to perform the earthmoving tasks required in a combat engineer unit. It features the ballast concept to keep its 32,000 pound weight within the limits for air transport and air drop and high cross country mobility while providing the work capacity of a heavier unit. The front-loaded with 8 cubic yards of soil it provides enough additional weight to almost double the UET's earthmoving capacity.

With a speed of 30 mph on level ground and outstanding cross-country mobility, the UET will, for the first time, provide the combat engineer with the mission capability to travel and to keep pace with armored units. It also is fitted with light armor protection, and has a limited swim capacity of 3 mph.

The scraper bowl is fitted with a hydraulically operated apron and positive load ejector. Dozing and scraping are accomplished by raising and lowering the UET's entire front end by means of the hydro-pneumatic suspension system. The 285 HP diesel engine provides more than sufficient power for all operations.

The four current pilot models built by Pacific Car and Foundry Company have completed the MASSTER test in December 1975 and are scheduled for completion of APG tests in July 1976. To date test results indicate that reliability problems encountered with previously built prototypes fabricated earlier in the development program have been overcome and that the UET will provide features of mobility, versatility, and maneuverability required to support combat forces.

This isn't the FAMECE we've been discussing, since it's a lightly-armored, tracked, sorta-amphibious vehicle, not by Clark nor Lockheed. I presume it's the ancestor of the M9 ACE bulldozer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_Armo...bat_Earthmover

In any case: the FAMECE requirement seems to have morphed into the M9, or something very close to the M9. The M9 seems kinda Project-y, what with light armor, amphibious (originally), and that big "ballast" box (good for carrying all sorts of things).


--
Michael B.